Woman Asks Hillary: If All Alleged Rape Victims Should Be Believed, What About Your Husband's Accusers?

Guy Benson | December 03, 2015 4:25 PM

Hillary's been engaged in this moral signaling for weeks now, as it dovetails nicely with her her First! Woman! President! identity-driven campaign:

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 14, 2015

That pronouncement elicited a torrent of mockery and challenges from Clinton detractors, who wondered if this standard applied to, say, her husband. Several women have accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct, ranging from unwanted groping to rape -- all of which falls under the vague, over-broad parameters of the "sexual assault" umbrella. What about them? Shouldn't those woman have been automatically believed, rather than ridiculed as 'nuts and sluts'? Good question. I'll let a female attendee at today's Clinton rally in New Hampshire take things from here:

.@HillaryClinton response: "Well, I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence"
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) December 3, 2015

Fascinating. It's true that Bill Clinton was never indicted, let alone convicted, of any sexual crime. But does that fact constitute determinative "evidence," upon which Bill's multiple accusers should be "disbelieved," in Hillary's mind? And in light of her answer above, wouldn't it follow that Mrs. Clinton

did believe women like Juanita Broaddrick, at least "at first"? Hmm. A number of conservatives have jumped on Hillary's response as turning the "innocent until proven guilty" legal standard on its head, but is that necessarily true? I think what she's getting at is that alleged sexual assault victims deserve to have their claims taken very seriously until there's reason to believe otherwise, not that accused parties should be presumed guilty under the law unless and until proof emerges that they're not. Her point applies to how self-described victims are treated when they first come forward. I don't think she's advocating any alterations to the legal process of how accused parties are dealt with as criminal cases are investigated and adjudicated.

Let's face it, though: None of that is particularly relevant to the intent behind her "right to be believed" posturing, is it? Her comments were meant as panders to the Lefty "rape culture" hysterics, whom we address at some length in End of Discussion. Clarifying walk-backs undermine the potency of her superficial 'pro-victim solidarity' messaging. Today, Hillary was confronted with the uncomfortable reality that she's a profoundly imperfect vessel for this specific pander.

Parting thoughts: Now that a private citizen has broached the verboten subject to her face, will anyone in the media dare to pick up this strand of questioning and further explore Hillary's thoughts on the matter? At what point did she stop believing Juanita Broaddrick, and why? And just for the sake of clarity, Clinton doesn't endorse the increasingly-prevalent anti-due process trend on college campuses, does she? Inquiring minds want to know.